NATOYA CUNNINGHAM v. STATE OF FLORIDA

District Court of Appeal of Florida

NATOYA CUNNINGHAM v. STATE OF FLORIDA

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 19, 2023

Docket22-1631

StatusPublished

This text of NATOYA CUNNINGHAM v. STATE OF FLORIDA (NATOYA CUNNINGHAM v. STATE OF FLORIDA) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

NATOYA CUNNINGHAM v. STATE OF FLORIDA, (Fla. Ct. App. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT

NATOYA CUNNINGHAM, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee.

No. 4D22-1631

[April 19, 2023]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, Martin County; Robert R. Makemson, Judge; L.T. Case No. 432019CF000487A.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Erika Follmer, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Rachael Kaiman, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

We affirm appellant’s convictions and sentences without discussion. See Guzman v. State, 350 So. 3d 72 (Fla. 4th DCA 2022). However, we remand for correction of scrivener’s errors in the scoresheet and judgment. The scoresheet lists section 784.045(1)(a)2., Florida Statutes, as the primary offense and the judgment states that appellant was convicted under section 784.045(1)(a)1., Florida Statutes. Both appellant and the state agree that the scoresheet and judgment should cite section 784.045(1)(a) without referencing any specific subparagraph because the jury did not make a finding as to whether the aggravated battery was based on great bodily harm or the use of a deadly weapon. Accordingly, on remand, the trial court shall make these corrections.

Affirmed and remanded with instructions.

GROSS, CONNER and FORST, JJ., concur.

* * * Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT

NATOYA CUNNINGHAM, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee.

No. 4D22-1631

[April 19, 2023]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, Martin County; Robert R. Makemson, Judge; L.T. Case No. 432019CF000487A.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Erika Follmer, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Rachael Kaiman, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

We affirm appellant’s convictions and sentences without discussion. See Guzman v. State, 350 So. 3d 72 (Fla. 4th DCA 2022). However, we remand for correction of scrivener’s errors in the scoresheet and judgment. The scoresheet lists section 784.045(1)(a)2., Florida Statutes, as the primary offense and the judgment states that appellant was convicted under section 784.045(1)(a)1., Florida Statutes. Both appellant and the state agree that the scoresheet and judgment should cite section 784.045(1)(a) without referencing any specific subparagraph because the jury did not make a finding as to whether the aggravated battery was based on great bodily harm or the use of a deadly weapon. Accordingly, on remand, the trial court shall make these corrections.

Affirmed and remanded with instructions.

GROSS, CONNER and FORST, JJ., concur.

* * * Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

NATOYA CUNNINGHAM v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/natoya-cunningham-v-state-of-florida-fladistctapp-2023.